Jonas B wrote:
A good grip and then a small slice of friction tape on the "bottom" part of the aperture ring make nearly all ergonomic problems go away. With the EVF you get a tilting viewfinder... and ergonomics in many cases became better than most other cameras.

What the RX1 should have is a tilting LCD, some sealing and IR remote ports (on at the front one at the back a la Pentax). But, not even £€$ 3000 can get you everything.

Yeah, a tilt LCD would be nice, but the problem is the location of the sensor within the body. If you look at a NEX camera, the sensor is essentially location in the middle of the body. With the RX1, the sensor is already near the back of the body, so there isn't a lot of room to add much back there, unless they started adding thickness to the camera body.

It's funny, I find that nearly half of all the latest ALT threads end up being about the RX1. Until we get a FF NEX, I expect this to continue. I can only imagine how this forum will be when the FF NEX with Zeiss lenses shows up.

I'm kinda intrigued by this RX1R. I may return the RX1 I just got and see what shows up. There might be a small wave of used RX1 on the market or a price reduction.

I will swim against the tide and say that if Sony makes a 50mm version of this, I'm in—I can to crop to get a 75mm FOV. It's subtle, but even 35mm distortion for head-and-shouilders framing of people I find troubling. I see no unflattering distortion in a decent 50, if I do not get too close, so for me, a 50mm lens on the FF Sony would be a winner.

douglasf13 wrote:
I'm talking more about a Zone B dip, that both the Cron and Lux have. The Zeiss ZM 35 and RX1 doesn't have that bit of a resolution drop mid frame that the Leica's do, so they're a little better choice for landscape type work, but we're probably splitting hairs. I loved how relatively low distortion and low CA the 35/2 ASPH, but I think the RX1's lens is probably more to my liking, overall.

I can see that. And I agree, we are splitting hairs, but that's what it comes down to. It's not like the C/Y Distagon 35/1.4 and the Leica Summilux-R 35/1.4, where about all they share in common is the focal length and max aperture.

Kit Laughlin wrote:
I will swim against the tide and say that if Sony makes a 50mm version of this, I'm in—I can to crop to get a 75mm FOV. It's subtle, but even 35mm distortion for head-and-shouilders framing of people I find troubling. I see no unflattering distortion in a decent 50, if I do not get too close, so for me, a 50mm lens on the FF Sony would be a winner.

Yeah, head and shoulders framing is usually not in the realm of 35mm, unless you're maybe taking a picture of a child, or someone with a overly flat face, or if you're Platon. That's what I've come to like about 35mm, in that it keeps me from taking head and shoulders portraits and forces me to focus on environmental portraits, which I tend to like better, anyways. I can still break out the old Nex-5 and manual lens if I absolutely have to take a head and shoulders portrait, which hasn't really happened since I switched from 50mm to 35mm as my main lens last year.

freaklikeme wrote:
I can see that. And I agree, we are splitting hairs, but that's what it comes down to. It's not like the C/Y Distagon 35/1.4 and the Leica Summilux-R 35/1.4, where about all they share in common is the focal length and max aperture.

Good point. I guess that, really, splitting hairs is the point of the alt forum.